Articles containing the keyword 'maanviljelijä'

This paper comments on the article written by Simo Hannelius that is published in the same issue of Silva Fennica (Who is the non-farmer forest owner? Silva Fennica 14 no. 4). Hannelius suggests that researchers dealing with the behaviour of private forest owners should change their classification to agree with the concepts presented in the Farm Economy statistics, and that the recommended concept of farmer forest owner is understood as a forest owner who has taxable net incomes (state taxation) from farming. Other private forest owners would be classified as non-farmers. Veli-Pekka Järveläinen states in his opinion that when distinguishing a farmer and a non-farmer, the key criterion should be the profession, which has been proved to be an important parameter in behavioural research.

• Järveläinen, E-mail: vj@mm.unknown

Research into the forestry behaviour of private forest owners in Finland began 10 years ago. The private forest owners have been dichotomously classified into two groups, farmers and non-farmers. The farmer forest owner was considered to derive his main income (earnings) from agriculture. This classification is compared to the concepts in statistical publication Farm Economy 1976 (Maatilatalous). On the basis of this examination, it is recommended that researchers dealing with the behaviour of private forest owners should change their classification to agree with the concepts presented in the Farm Economy statistics. The recommended concept of farmer forest owner is understood as a forest owner who has taxable net incomes (state taxation) from farming. Other private forest owners are classified as non-farmers.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Hannelius, E-mail: sh@mm.unknown

Under the soil bank act, which took effect in 1969, 85,000 hectares of agricultural land were withdrawn from agricultural production in order to cut down the heavy surpluses of grain and butter in Finland. The farmers have a possibility to afforest their soil bank land partly on public funds, and if they choose to do so they receive a compensation of 250 Fmk for 15 years, instead of the nine years which is the maximum duration of a soil bank contract.

The study involved interviewing of 136 farmers sampled from the total of 13,368. The farmers were planning to afforest a total of 18,600 ha by the end of 1972. The main species were birch (Betula sp.) 40%, Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) both 30%. The main reasons (mentioned by 65% of the farmers) for afforestating the soil bank land were the unfavourable conditions for agriculture. On the other hand, 43% of those who had decided not to afforest felt that their land is too good to be planted with trees. One fifth of those not afforesting said that they themselves would not benefit from the afforestation and therefore were not interested in investing in forestry. The attitudes of the farmers seem to have also influenced their decision on afforestation. Those who had taken a positive decision on afforestation appeared to take more positive attitude in regard to forestry than other farmers.

The soil bank act does not seem to solve permanently Finland’s problem of the surpluses of agricultural products since the soil bank farmers planned to revert two thirds of the soil bank land under cultivation on the expiration of the soil bank act.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Numminen, E-mail: jn@mm.unknown